User talk:MadeYourReadThis/Archives/2009/August

Delaware

Please give a bit of a break, I know something is wrong and I am in the process of learning and correcting. It's only Delaware I am learning on, and I've never been perfect. It will be OK this morning. stilltim (talk) 11:54, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

• Well that was my mistake...it was meant to be a category. I'll never learn. stilltim (talk) 11:57, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Neptali A. Gonzales

Hi, could you take another look at the Neptali A. Gonzales article. I rewrote it to comply with copyright issues. Thanks. Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 11:55, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Is it OK? Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 12:38, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Better. Please dont copy and past from other sources in the future.--RadioFan (talk) 13:12, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Spectrasonics

Spectrasonics is a real company. please tell me why you want to auto delete

Cylonagen (talk) 22:55, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

I dont doubt that it is a real company. However, this article does not meet WP:CORP.--RadioFan (talk) 22:59, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

i disagree, but may be i just didn't include enough links to satisfy you. i will update —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cylonagen (talk • contribs) 23:04, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Spectrasonics has been updated as to why it is notable and worthy of being in wikipedia. thank you

23:14, 1 August 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cylonagen (talk • contribs)

ok, my mistake deleting auto delete too early. i will add more references. (Cylonagen (talk) 23:59, 1 August 2009 (UTC))

would you please reread Spectrasonics so we can take down the citations. (Cylonagen (talk) 00:22, 2 August 2009 (UTC))

It still relies too much on primary sources needs additional references from 3rd party reliable sources to meet WP:CORP--RadioFan (talk) 00:41, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Piovesan

Sorry for my bad english. Is now the page acceptable?--Der Schalk (talk) 22:57, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Which article are you referring to?--RadioFan (talk) 03:55, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Logan Lynn (album)

Hello RadioFan, and thanks for your work patrolling new changes. I am just informing you that I declined the speedy deletion of Logan Lynn (album) - a page you tagged - because: Contains sufficient content to be a stub. Please review the criteria for speedy deletion before tagging further pages. If you have any questions or problems, please let me know. Closedmouth (talk) 09:12, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Freaks of Desire reference

I've added a reference from IMDB for this page - is that ok? Itsmaude (talk) 13:55, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

While its nice as an external link, IMDB is not a suitable reference for demonstrating notability. Reviews in reliable sources such as newspapers or magazines will demonstrate notability however.--RadioFan (talk) 13:57, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Continental Airlines Flight 128

• This article is very important. In future, you must to consult sources and then you could put a deletion proposal. Thanks! TouLouse (talk) 16:01, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

As mentioned in the proposed deletion, references were checked. I considered tagging this for speedy deletion since no notability is claimed here but opted for proposed deletion to give a chance for the article to be improved.--RadioFan (talk) 16:17, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

I've deprodded the article because it appears to meet WP:AIRCRASH criteria. I'm happy for this to go to WP:AFD if you wish to nominate it there. As the accident only happen today perhaps it may be worth waiting a few days so that more facts can emerge. It has also been reported by the BBC so there seem to be enough reliable sources to go on. Mjroots (talk) 17:06, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

News on this incident is now reporting some serious injuries, I'm fine with it being deprod'd.--RadioFan (talk) 17:08, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Flag templates for deletion warnings

Hello, MadeYourReadThis/Archives/2009 … If you're not already aware of them, I'd like to introduce you to WP:FLAG-PROTOCOL (Protocol to minimize friction from proposed deletions and speedy deletions) and the Flag templates for deletion warnings … I sometimes stick {{Flag-article}} on an article that I stumble across after Some Other Editor has stuck a {{Prod}} on it, since that puts it in Category:Flagged articles, which is patrolled by a diverse cross-section of editors. :-)

Happy Editing! — 141.156.175.125 (talk · contribs) _{00:45, 4 August 2009 (UTC)}

Sai_R._Gunturi

RadioFan, Just saw your comment. Re:my change to the discussion on Sai_R._Gunturi et al. As I haven't edited his page only added a comment to the discussion on Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Sai_R._Gunturi can you explain what I did wrong? I suppose it's possible by adding a comment to the particular people I though deserved keeping could be considered to be editing others comments but it seemed in keeping with the way the page was developing. Anyhow let me know. Tglaisyer (talk) 01:27, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Gudda Gudda

I have removed the {{prod}} tag from Gudda Gudda, which you proposed for deletion. I'm leaving this message here to notify you about it. If you still think the article should be deleted, please don't add the {{prod}} template back to the article. Instead, feel free to list it at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. Thanks!

Hello RadioFan, I'm brand new to wikipedia and I'm still learning how to use it, thank you for your patience. Gudda Gudda is a "notable" new recording artist, please google him if need be. I made changes to the page and added the needed citations. Thank You for your time.My2Cents4You (talk) 09:56, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

WP:MUSIC is a good place to start learning about notability guidelines which apply to this article. Also WP:RS will guide you to which sources are appropriate for use as references.--RadioFan (talk) 12:51, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Thnx fer taking this one to AfD … I hung a {{Prod-2}} on it, and was about to log in to do an AfD myself … as you can see by the logs, I also updated the {{Oldprodfull}}. :-) — 141.156.175.125 (talk) 00:11, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

dePRODing of articles

Hello RadioFan, this is an automated message from SDPatrolBot to inform you the PROD templates you added to a number of articles were removed:

• PROD removed from None Shall Escape..., by User:War Monger97, with summary '(no edit summary)'
• PROD removed from Apartment Story, by User:Gongshow, with summary '(significant media coverage of the song across wealth of reliable sources)'
• PROD removed from Philip Lasser, by User:Truthintruth, with summary '(added references, more biogrpahical detail)'

Please consider discussing your concerns with the relevant users before pursuing deletion further. If you still think the articles should be deleted after communicating with the 'dePRODer,' you may send them to WP:AfD for community discussion. Thank you - SDPatrolBot (talk) (Learn how to opt out of these messages)

Radio station script

I know you're behind the radio station stub tool that's being used by some users, what's the web address to use it? I was using it occasionally until I had computer issues and lost all my bookmarks. User:MrRadioGuy ^{What's that?/What I Do/Feed My Box} 13:24, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm in the process of updating it and it will soon have a new URL. If you've got any feedback on the script, please add it here--RadioFan (talk) 14:26, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Explanations of the validity of my articles

I appreciate your criticism, but I believe that all the articles I have created, while being stubs (apart from Bolak, which is clearly a start class article on a constructed language) are valuable additions to Wikipedia and can serve as a basis for further expansion.

Second, they are all more or less translated from the articles on other wikis, so if they meet the inclusion criteria of those other wikis, I don't see how they don't meet those of the English Wikipedia.

Third - while they may not seem as very useful to you (that, of course, depends on the subjects of your interest), I believe that they are and will be useful, even in their stub form (hey, each and every article on this wiki started as a stub, that is not a bad thing) to those who are interested in constructed languages, their creators, movements and history

For further explanations please see their respective pages.

No hard feelings. ;-)

--ArkinAardvark (talk) 12:34, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Transwiking from other language's Wikipedias does not releive you of the responsibility to source the material you add. All of these articles lack 3rd party references demonstrating their notability. Some have single references to a single book but I'm afraid that's not enough. I'll leave them for a few days for you (or other editors) to improve. If citations showing significant coverage in 3rd party sources aren't added, the articles will need to be discussed for possible deletion. You should also consider merging these articles. If the language is known better than the creator, then consider making the creator a section within the language article or vice versa. I dont think we need all these articles, especially the very short ones.--RadioFan (talk) 12:46, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

A compromise?

You're right - most of the articles are too short; I believe that they should be tagged ˝under construction˝ or with merge proposals and not deleted (I would hate to see my contributions vanished).

However, I'm short with time (today's wave of editing was the last for the next month or two) and I don't have time to do that until the beginning of October - by that time I will have more time for translation and research fro new data and references, so the compromise would be to leave them with merge proposals (of course, there is no need to wait for me - anyone can do that in the meantime).

Good enough?

--ArkinAardvark (talk) 17:39, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

All the World Is Mad

As expected, the creator has removed our PROD tags. Would you set up an AfD for it? 98.248.32.178 (talk) 22:24, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

dePRODing of articles

Hello RadioFan, this is an automated message from SDPatrolBot to inform you the PROD templates you added to a number of articles were removed:

• PROD removed from Ayegunle, by User:Snigbrook, with summary '(remove prod, towns are usually notable)'
• PROD removed from Don Nicholas, by User:Onedolphin, with summary '(added third party references)'
• PROD removed from Salariya Book Company, by User:Closedmouth, with summary '(prod is contested, please take it to afd instead if you wish to have it deleted (per WP:PROD))'
• PROD removed from Ariana (constructed language), by User:ArkinAardvark, with summary '(no edit summary)'
• PROD removed from Eo (constructed language), by User:ArkinAardvark, with summary '(no edit summary)'
• PROD removed from Paul Steiner (language creator), by User:ArkinAardvark, with summary '(no edit summary)'
• PROD removed from Amiana (constructed language), by User:ArkinAardvark, with summary '(no edit summary)'
• PROD removed from Arturo Alfandari, by User:ArkinAardvark, with summary '(no edit summary)'
• PROD removed from Bolak (Blue Language), by User:ArkinAardvark, with summary '(no edit summary)'
• PROD removed from Boleslas Gajewski, by User:ArkinAardvark, with summary '(no edit summary)'
• PROD removed from Neo (constructed language), by User:ArkinAardvark, with summary '(no edit summary)'
• PROD removed from Petro Stojan, by User:ArkinAardvark, with summary '(no edit summary)'

Please consider discussing your concerns with the relevant users before pursuing deletion further. If you still think the articles should be deleted after communicating with the 'dePRODer,' you may send them to WP:AfD for community discussion. Thank you - SDPatrolBot (talk) (Learn how to opt out of these messages)

Removal of PROD from Life Starts Now

Hello RadioFan, this is an automated message from SDPatrolBot to inform you the PROD template you added to Life Starts Now has been removed. It was removed by FireDragonValo with the following edit summary '(no edit summary)'. Please consider discussing your concerns with FireDragonValo before pursuing deletion further yourself. If you still think the article should be deleted after communicating with the 'dePRODer,' you may want to send the article to AfD for community discussion. Thank you, SDPatrolBot (talk) 19:47, 7 August 2009 (UTC) (Learn how to opt out of these messages)

Proposed deletion of new page 7 Princesses

Hi. Saw that you proposed deleting the new page 7 Princesses. I'm still quite new to wiki, so would like to ask for feedback/opinion/suggestion on how I could improve the page to prevent it from being deleted? Thanks. Pehxinyi (talk) 07:47, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

References to reliable, verifiable sources are required. Primary sources which are written by those close to the subject of the article (such as press releases, official websites etc.) dont make good reliable sources for showing notability. Similarly blogs and fan pages, official or otherwise, dont either. If this term is widely used in the media, it shouldn't be too difficult to find some references in magazine or newspaper articles and use those as references.--RadioFan (talk) 11:09, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice. Updated the article with third party news source and added some links. Any other advice?Pehxinyi (talk) 15:47, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Mars Volta The Lowdown

Hello RadioFan. I am wondering if my edits on Mars Volta The Lowdown has made the article relevant enought for wikipedia. Can you look on it. Thank you --Stiligknubbis (talk) 13:19, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm afraid not, 1 track listed and references only to a CD sale site aren't going to push this article over the notability hump. There is no rush and we can wait to recreate this article until sufficient sources (such as reviews in newspaper or magazines) are avialable and more information about the album itself.--RadioFan (talk) 02:43, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Since the artikle is aboat a biography CD it doesn't has any reviews in music magazines. I have edit one more sourse, I hope that thats enought, thank you for reading, --Stiligknubbis (talk) 08:33, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

If it's not been widely covered then I'm afraid it doesn't meet notability guidelines.--RadioFan (talk) 13:04, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Greensprings School

The actual article Greensprings School doesn't seem to be there? Regards, JohnCD (talk) 15:13, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

I deleted it as a copyvio before the AFD was posted. Toddst1 (talk) 15:15, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, would you mind deleting it and closing the AFD?--RadioFan (talk) 15:17, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Deleted article and AFD instead of closed. Toddst1 (talk) 15:22, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Works for me, thanks for the quick action.--RadioFan (talk) 15:23, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject/Schools

Thanks for clarifying.--Buster7 (talk) 17:59, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

of course. This topic drives me crazy. I hate it when pseudo-policy is cited for keeping a bad article or bad edit around.--RadioFan (talk) 18:04, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Amos Daragon

I know there's an SPA around promoting Salariya Books, but don't throw the baby out with the bathwater! The book was already a success in the original French. It has a lot of coverage in French-speaking media: http://news.google.co.uk/archivesearch?um=1&ned=uk&hl=en&q=%22Amos+Daragon%22&cf=all. I've deprodded. Fences&Windows 22:11, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

The article still has zero references, could you add some of those references there?--RadioFan (talk) 00:15, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I know, but my French is rusty. I'll give it a go with Google Translate, and I'll see if I can find an appropriate Wikiproject to go begging to as well. I don't know how your French is, maybe you could have a go too. Fences&Windows 01:02, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Twibbon

Hi RadioFan,

Could you please give some advice on how to ensure that 'Twibbon' doesn't get deleted again once I create it as a topic on Wikipedia. Given it's massive usage on the internet (almost 200,000 users in just a month), and coverage from news outlets such as GMA.TV, Asia's leading news channel, influential sites such as Mashable, TechCrunch and Digg.com, as well as several national publications, including Brazil's Estadao, it must be allowed to be created.

In particular, over 18,000 people used Twibbon to pay respects to President Cory Aquino, and it has been instrumental in the 'IE6 Must Die' Campaign. What more must be provided to ensure this doesn't get deleted?

Thank you.

Camelglasses (I can't do tildes on my Computer)

---

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Camelglasses (talk • contribs) 11:00, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I've left some welcoming information on your talk page which includes links to good information on writing good articles. Wikipedia:Your first article is a good place to start. Make sure you understand WP:N and WP:RS before you start or your work is likely to be challanged. WP:CITE shows you had to properly cite your sources. In the end it doesn't matter how much usage a particular website or tool gets, if there aren't reliable sources available discussing it, it's likely to be deleted.--RadioFan (talk) 11:31, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm presuming this was a mistake...

I don't think reverting an AfD contribution was on purpose, was it? Jclemens (talk) 16:48, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes it was, thanks for catching that. --RadioFan (talk) 18:33, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

The Monk Seal Conspiracy

I note that you have tagged my entry has been earmarked for speedy deletion. This is the first review I have attempted to post on Wikipedia and so I am not entirely familar with the procedure for ammending my work so that this tag may be removed without provoking a pointless edit war.

I have added a hangon tag.

I note that books may qualify for notability if they are cited by multiple external sources. On this basis I would have added links on the page to two reputable societies who cite the work in their literature lists: "Monachus Guardian" http://www.monachus-guardian.org/factfiles/medit21.htm "Seal Conservation Society" http://www.pinnipeds.org/library.htm

The book's author headed an international project to conserve the Monk Seal and so is an authority on the subject. This is not a sales pitch, I have no financial interest in promoting this book and wish only to bring it to the attention of the public.

I have removed "subjective" descriptions from the text although I make no apology for having described the prose as eloquent and regard this as easily verified by reading even a little of this work.

I hope that this is satisfactory, if not then I should be keen to receive further feedback on why it is not and if necessary to look for an adjudicator.

No hard feelings.

Andrew F. (talk) 13:52, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Articles for deletion nomination of WLRY

I have nominated WLRY, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/WLRY. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Dougweller (talk) 07:18, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

The Monk Seal Conspiracy

Just a friendly heads up on The Monk Seal Conspiracy, which you prodded. The article's creator put a {{hangon}} tag on the article an a reason it shouldn't be deleted on the talk page. I'm interpreting this as an attempt to contest the prod, so I removed both the hangon and prod. Feel free to take it to AfD if you want. Cheers! --Fabrictramp | talk to me 15:18, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Templates for deletion nomination of Template:HWOF sentence

Template:HWOF sentence has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. Plastikspork (talk) 15:12, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for placing the db-author. Should I delete User:RadioFan/hwof as well? Thanks! Plastikspork (talk) 16:27, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

No please just delete the one in public space, leave the user version as is.--RadioFan (talk) 22:37, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Cadillac Cyclone

I had just created the article Cadillac Cyclone and the bot tagged me for a copyright violation. Sorry 'bout that, all has been fixed. I did indeed use the text from a GM press release for the first draft until I could rewrite the article. Bad form on my part, I'll create articles in my user space next time.

I have rewritten the article in my own words from multiple reference sources, so hopefully the CSD tags can be removed.

I will also be putting images of the Cadillac Cyclone in the article after I clear them through Wikimedia copyright requirements.

The Cyclone is one bad-ass lookin' car. JamesMadison (talk) 23:40, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Blobble

Please try to be careful with Twinkle -- you inadvertently reverted User:99.149.84.135's restoring a speedy deletion tag, and warned him about removing it. The IP editor actions were perfectly proper in restoring the tag removed by the page author -- undoing that and warning him about removing it wasn't a good idea. Thanks. -- ArglebargleIV (talk) 11:51, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Please review the whole situation before scolding other editors. Yes, I reverted the wrong version (a race condition), I immediately noticed this, went to revert (was already reverted) and went on to revert the warning on that users's talk page and apologized in the comment there.--RadioFan (talk) 12:00, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm confused--the edit history [1] shows that I reverted the warning to my talk page, and I am unaware of any comment there acknowledging erroneous edits. 99.149.84.135 (talk) 12:24, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

I reverted back my warning on your talk page with comment "removing warning, reverted wrong revision, sorry". We must have done it at the same time. I assure you both that I caught this immediately. 99.149.84.135, you should also consider getting an account, especially if you are patrolling new pages. --RadioFan (talk) 12:44, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your explanation--such good-faith edits often cross wires. Nonetheless, a follow-up note in such cases is always appreciated. As explained on my talk page, I have had an account since 2006, with over 30,000 edits, creating and contributing to feature articles, accumulating barnstars, etc. Currently I enjoy editing as an IP account. Cheers, 99.149.84.135 (talk) 13:26, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry that I left you the message which probably should not have been left -- apparently what happened to you (things moving quickly, crossed paths) happened to me as well, and I should have slowed down. However, I certainly don't see the apology you left, either. Anyway, sorry about that. -- ArglebargleIV (talk) 12:27, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Life Starts Now page

I have, as requested, completely overhauled the Life Starts Now page which you suggested deletion for last week. Can the deletion notice now be removed? Jaj43123 (talk) 16:05, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Once the AFD process starts, it must be closed out by an administrator. You are welcome to share your thoughts on this article here--RadioFan (talk) 16:51, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

NowCommons: File:Nasaad1.JPG

File:Nasaad1.JPG is now available on Wikimedia Commons as Commons:File:Nasaad1.JPG. This is a repository of free media that can be used on all Wikimedia wikis. The image will be deleted from Wikipedia, but this doesn't mean it can't be used anymore. You can embed an image uploaded to Commons like you would an image uploaded to Wikipedia, in this case: [[File:Nasaad1.JPG]]. Note that this is an automated message to inform you about the move. This bot did not copy the image itself. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 07:21, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

re

ive replied to your comment on my talk page The mark tom and travis show (talk) 17:43, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Un-merge

How to un-merge Old Victorians which you have merged into Victoria School? DragTian (talk) 18:19, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

I dont believe it should be unmerged. There is no reason to break out a list this size, doing so gives it undue weight--RadioFan (talk) 20:20, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:Wxmd logo.jpg)

Thanks for uploading File:Wxmd logo.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 07:29, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:WMRI logo.png)

Thanks for uploading File:WMRI logo.png. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 08:25, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Eleanor Catton

Hi RadioFan. I think Eleanor Catton is on OK shape now for you to remove the cleanup tag? NBeale (talk) 13:39, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

The cleanup tag has been removed but it was replaced by a refimprove tag. There are a number of external links appear to be references but are not cited.--RadioFan (talk) 15:27, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Autoreviewer

I'm not an editor, I'm an admin like me. I've granted you autoreviewer access following a request from User:Ironholds. Please be gentle! Mahalo,  Skomorokh  02:14, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I appreciate the vote of confidence and shall do my best to use it well.--RadioFan (talk) 11:29, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

No problem - keep writing the good articles! Ironholds (talk) 11:33, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Your JL Naudin deletion nomnination

Like I said RadioFan, have patience, and stop straining for fame over your assumptions. And did you notice the page was just created? You're being stupid.Serpentdove (talk) 12:00, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

The article is being discussed for deletion among all editor, please comment there and please avoid the personal attacks, it's not helpful.--RadioFan (talk) 12:05, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Destiny Online

I am trying to create an entry for Destiny Online and I have no idea why its being marked for deletion. Also I can't upload images or screenshots to make the entry more informative. Please help me. If need be, please email me at wwwescape@gmail.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wwwescape (talk • contribs) 12:39, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

It was marked for deletion (and was recently deleted) because it does not meet notability guidelines. Also if you click on the Upload File link in the toolbox to the left, you'll be able to upload screenshots. See Wikipedia:Images for more information including some things you need to know about permissions and tagging the image to reflect those permissions. Without that, the images are likely to be deleted.--RadioFan (talk) 12:58, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Re: The Crystal Caravan question

I play in the band. All facts here are taken from third part sources such as magazines, AllMusic and news papers. Are there more sources and footnotes you need?

Swumpf (talk) 16:27, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

In that case, you have a conflict of interest and should not be contributing to articles about the band. I'll leave some additional information on your talk page.--RadioFan (talk) 16:29, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Ronnie Tod

Hello, MadeYourReadThis. You have new messages at AustralianRupert's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

— AustralianRupert (talk) 16:39, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

The Crystal Caravan

Hello!

The facts in the article about The Crystal Caravan are based around many third part sources. I cant see why this has been nominated to deletion. Please let me know so I can deal with these possible issues. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Swumpf (talk • contribs) 16:16, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

These references confirm the existence of the group but dont do much to establish it's notability. Allmusic is frequently referenced in articles about bands but the entry for this band in allmusic has little content, only mentions the one album and includes a tracklist. The reliability of the other items referenced is not clear. If this band or the album it produced has been reviewed in a mainstream music magazine or newspaper, that would do a lot to help establish its notability. See WP:MUSIC and WP:GNG for more info.--RadioFan (talk) 16:22, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

I've added more notes now from mayor Swedish magazines. I can probably add a whole bunch more but that still does not change the face that the ones there are all trustworthy. And by adding a deletion tag at the album I cannot understand. Only due to the fact I the band does not change the lengths of the tracks or the album cover. Same as the main page. In case using Wikipedia as a marketing tool -I'm sure you can tell from the article that this is not the issue. --Swumpf (talk) 16:45, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

See now if the sources added will do at this article in question. Thanks! --Swumpf (talk) 17:22, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Take a look at the information on COI on your talk page. As a member of this band, you should not be editing this article.--RadioFan (talk) 18:05, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

FabricLive.47

Please look at the hidden comments before you post something up for speedy deletion. 『 ɠu¹ɖяy 』 ^{¤ • ¢} 18:49, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Fabric discography

I have removed your "dated prod" tag from the Fabric discography list. This article has been disputed before & was decided to keep as is Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Fabric_discography. 『 ɠu¹ɖяy 』 ^{¤ • ¢} 19:13, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the note.--RadioFan (talk) 19:55, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Rehoboth Christian College

I am intrigued that you are so quick to jump on an article in progress, just commenced, about a school halfway round the world which is notable in being a pioneering example of a specific type of school education in Oceania, when there are numerous examples of schools in North Carolina which are smaller or less notable in being dime-a-dozen in their region and whose articles haven't been progressed beyond the most embryonic form in months. Random examples include New Garden Friends School, Hugh M Cummings High School or Cape Fear Academy. Had you chosen to add the sort of tag applied to North Carolina's Charlotte Christian School I would have understood; but to jump on an article which is so obviously a new article and a work in progress with reasonably heavy-handed tags such as those applied seems a little over-zealous. I would ask you to kindly reconsider. I have, by the way, based my structure on that of my own city's Presbyterian Ladies' College, Perth -- Ishel99 (talk) 16:27, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

To answer you question about speed, take a look at Wikipedia:New pages patrol. If an article is underconstruction, you might consider adding {{underconstruction}} to signal new page patrollers that you are not done with it and intended to add more content and references soon.--RadioFan (talk) 16:38, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion. Have added said tag. Work will continue. -- Ishel99 (talk) 21:48, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Radio stations articles - notability?

Since you have redrawn my attention to WP:N and cognate pages, and seeing your own interest in Wikipedia:WikiProject Radio Stations, which seems to be a parallel and comparable interest to schools, I took a look at Wikipedia:WikiProject Radio Stations. It seems that this project's intent is to create an article for every radio station in existence. The 'Scope' on that Project's home page states it as being "...predominantly articles about individual radio stations". The only mention of a notability criterion is in regard to technology, content and people. As I look further into the project, I find a scad of tiny radio stations whose only citations are for rating organizations or government registration authorities. A random typical example would be KFBC Cheyenne. It seems that enthusiasts in this project are keen to work towards a comprehensive listing of all radio stations, at least US or North American stations but probably worldwide. As an Inclusionist Wikipedian I have no trouble with this, but I am interested as to how it may be justified from the point of view of one who "leans towards the exclusionist side of the scale between inclusion and exclusion of wikipedia articles"? -- Ishel99 (talk) 22:20, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Charlotte Christian School

I refer to your edit here. When information is unsourced, but likely to be correct, it is more helpful to source the statements rather than remove them. However, if you do not wish to do this, then please copy them to the talk page so that others can find and source them. TerriersFan (talk) 02:03, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Rappahannock News Times

A tag has been placed on Rappahannock News Times requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because the article, which appears to be about a real person, individual animal(s), an organization (band, club, company, etc.), or web content, does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not indicate the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable. If this is the first page that you have created, then you should read the guide to writing your first article.

If you think that you can assert the notability of the subject, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the article (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the article's talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm the subject's notability under Wikipedia guidelines.

For guidelines on specific types of articles, you may want to check out our criteria for biographies, for web sites, for bands, or for companies. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Abductive (reasoning) 03:11, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Orange County Review

A tag has been placed on Orange County Review requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because the article, which appears to be about a real person, individual animal(s), an organization (band, club, company, etc.), or web content, does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not indicate the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable. If this is the first page that you have created, then you should read the guide to writing your first article.

If you think that you can assert the notability of the subject, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the article (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the article's talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm the subject's notability under Wikipedia guidelines.

For guidelines on specific types of articles, you may want to check out our criteria for biographies, for web sites, for bands, or for companies. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Abductive (reasoning) 06:34, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Meetup/DC 8

Update: apparently people are converging on Sept 26 as the date for the next DC meetup. I can't make it that weekend. I'll give you a holler if I see any interest in an NC meetup. - Dank (push to talk) 14:54, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Removal of PROD from Mohamad Hazriq Idrus

Hello RadioFan, this is an automated message from SDPatrolBot to inform you the PROD template you added to Mohamad Hazriq Idrus has been removed. It was removed by Kampunguy with the following edit summary '(article has been improved)'. Please consider discussing your concerns with Kampunguy before pursuing deletion further yourself. If you still think the article should be deleted after communicating with the 'dePRODer,' you may want to send the article to AfD for community discussion. Thank you, SDPatrolBot (talk) 21:32, 20 August 2009 (UTC) (Learn how to opt out of these messages)

Excessive prods

Seems that your latest pastime is to prod clearly notable articles. It would be more productive to find and add sources, you know. Shreevatsa (talk) 18:19, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

I dont see the notability of these articles. None of these articles have any 3rd party references and are all about local or regional at best clubs. Some have been tagged for years with concerns. You are welcome to improve them so that the prod notices may be removed. Perhaps there are some good references available that I'm unaware of but Google searches did not produce the kind of significant coverage in 3rd party sources that WP:N demands.--RadioFan (talk) 18:26, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Ignoring the fact that some of your prods are national organisations, what makes you think that "local or regional at best" makes something non-notable? Policy explicitly states that even the most local interests can be perfectly notable. The fact that an article is badly written or tagged with concerns is never a reason for deletion; you are just as welcome to improve them. I don't know how well you could have performed Google searches to prod dozens of articles in two minutes. To take two random examples, look at results for Khagol Mandal or International Telugu Institute; if you read carefully there's enough mention to establish notability or even write an article. (And you should keep in mind that only a very tiny fraction of Indian newspapers or books are likely to be on the internet in the first place.) Please read about systemic bias and try to do constructive things like improving articles instead of the lazy option of deleting them. Articles in bad shape are exactly the ones needing the most improvement. Shreevatsa (talk) 19:08, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

The prods are perfectly acceptable and were clearly done in good faith following actual notability guidelines instead of the rather peculiar interpretation Shreevatsa follows. Local-only groups tend not to be notable enough for an encyclopedia. Bad articles should be deleted, not wait around forever in the vain hope that they will be improved to meet our standards. Deletion is a form of improvement for many articles. DreamGuy (talk) 00:30, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Did you read the policy linked above on local groups? Do you think the Royal Astronomical Society of Canada is non-notable? Do you think that it is likely that "a good-faith attempt to confirm that such sources aren't likely to exist" was made before prodding so many articles in such a short time? And why do you say that "bad articles should be deleted", given that consensus has been explicitly against this, e.g. with WP:BEFORE saying (in bold) that "If the article can be fixed through normal editing, then it is not a good candidate for AfD."? Shreevatsa (talk) 01:05, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

I've reverted your mass PRODing of astronomical association articles. Shreevatsa above explained why. See also this discussion. Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 16:55, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

All articles must meet notability guidelines, including references in 3rd party sources. None of these articles had sufficient references. Royal Astronomical Society of Canada is notable if any only if sufficent references are there, and they are now thanks to a recent edit. --RadioFan (talk) 17:42, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

A topic is notable if significant coverage in reliable independent sources exists. If the coverage exists but is not the cited in the article, then you should add the sources, not delete the article. --Apoc2400 (talk) 18:05, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

I was dropping off a message below, and I noticed the shouting. RadioFan, I think the best way to proceed here, given that you were drawing a conclusion from an ongoing AfD that certain similar articles probably failed notability as well, would have been to do a Google check for each, and if they failed that, bundle them into the linked AfD and let everyone discuss it. I have a hard time myself figuring out what should and shouldn't be prodded; partly to get it right and partly to protect myself, I shy away from PRODding articles that have been around a while or articles that appear to be about hobbyist groups. Before I speedy or prod an article on an organization, I'm looking for a sense that they're looking to sell something or looking for donations, and other signs that they're here for the wrong reasons. I know that you know a great deal about notability and that you're exceptionally productive, but be really careful on PRODs. - Dank (push to talk) 18:12, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

It's good that this issue is settled now. The Royal Astronomical Society of Canada (or anything else) has exactly the same notability no matter what the state of its Wikipedia article is; it is absurdly self-referential to use the Wikipedia article itself as a measure of notability. The article might either establish the notability itself or not (ideally/eventually it should), but if it doesn't, the references should be found and added; it's destructive to delete the article. (And certainly in bad faith to do so without the bare minimum of research.) Shreevatsa (talk) 04:36, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

WEZV

Arbitron is wrong. Please leave the format alone.

We use standard format definitions here. I was reverted when I tried to call it adult standards. It is NOT, repeat, NOT soft adult contemporary.Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 14:36, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

I have contacted the station and hope they'll respond to the situation. Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 17:27, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Do you have a reliable source to reference this? Arbitron is just listing what the station reported to them.--RadioFan (talk) 11:19, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

That's why I contacted the station, but I don't believe for one minute any station would describe this format as "soft adult contemporary". I did manage to convince the man who handles updates of format information for the Arbitron ratings section of radio-info.com. Of course, he thinks the "soft rock" station he listens to is "soft adult contemporary". I don't think he had a leg to stand on when he realized how different his station and WEZV were.

I went back through the history to find who added that reference to Broadcasting Yearbook. I'm sure a more up-to-date one has the information, but I'm adding it back in the place the person should have put it in the first place.Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 17:06, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

A cryptic title and a year is not much of a reference. We need something better here.--RadioFan (talk) 17:10, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

I know, but I'm not at the library. I'll try to remember next time I'm at the library. Someone who worked at the library where that book is and now works at the library where I go the most said the card catalog is online. Of course, if this person isn't there .... No matter, any librarian can figure out how to tell me to find this book online. In fact, there may be other sources for this book's information.Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 18:39, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

{{cite book}}: Empty citation (help) There (okay, you can't see it without the edit window). All I have to do is show this to him or her. In fact, anyone can edit Wikipedia. The people who work at that library are bored on Saturday anyway.Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 18:40, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Let's take this discussion to the talk page of this page so others can weigh in as well.--RadioFan (talk) 18:49, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image (File:KBLP logo.png)

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:KBLP logo.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. FileBot (talk) 23:09, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image (File:KBLP logo.png)

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:KBLP logo.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. FileBot (talk) 23:09, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Braintree rock band

I added a link to a web site that proves that Braintree was in a National Chart. This provides the third party verification that is required. This is also proof of Braintree being in a National chart which is a requirement for showing Importance. Please let me know if this is sufficient. Thanks Quintapus (talk) 03:13, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with IndieHQ. Do you have a link to a more commonly used reference such as Billboard showing this chart information?--RadioFan (talk) 11:21, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately you have to have a subscription to view the Billboard indie charts. That is why Indie HQ can only show part of the charts. Billboard doesn't really want people to see it without paying for it. But the Indie HQ site is reputable and is in no way affiliated with any band or influenced by any band. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Quintapus (talk • contribs) 00:10, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

To see the complete charts, you need a subscription. But generally, chart information will come up when searching on a band. Also there is no requirement that URLs be provided in a reference. All that is needed is the date of the Billboard issue, the name of the chart, and preferably the page number that the band's album or single appeared on the chart. Also, is it the "Top Independent Albums" chart you are referring to?--RadioFan (talk) 01:07, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Well then 11-8-06 is one of the first appearances of Tsicavo in the top 200 indie charts. It was at #172 having sold 863 copies that week. But it has been higher in the chart with the other album fabricate in the chart as well. Quintapus (talk) 03:43, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi RadioFan

I have put in some replies for you at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Victoria_School#Alumni Thanks! DragTian (talk) 04:09, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

An exciting opportunity to get involved!

As a member of the Aviation WikiProject or one of its subprojects, you may be interested in testing your skills in the Aviation Contest! I created this contest, not to pit editor against editor, but to promote article improvement and project participation and camraderie. Hopefully you will agree with its usefulness. Sign up here, read up on the rules here, and discuss the contest here. The first round of the contest may not start until September 1st-unless a large number of editors signup and are ready to compete immediately! Since this contest is just beginning, please give feedback here, or let me know what you think on my talkpage. - Trevor MacInnis ^contribs 05:01, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Please do not mark the creation of new pages as minor edits.

You've created several stubs on radio stations. These are major edits, not inconsequential ones, so could you not mark them as minor edits in the future? Also, per the MoS, you should not write dates in YYYY-MM-DD format. Instead pick whatever format you like (such as 1 September 1942 or September 1, 1942). Also date autoformatting is deprecated, so it would be better if you did not place the dates in brackets. Thanks. Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 12:23, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

This kind of date linking had been preferred at one point but I see the standard has now been updated. Reverting to American style dates, unlinked. Done--RadioFan (talk) 14:30, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, MadeYourReadThis. You have new messages at Mlaffs's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Not a Barn...

	The Working Wikipedian's Barnstar
	For creating some 20+ and counting radio station articles today, I hereby award you this barnstar. Keep up the good work. Congrats! - NeutralHomer • Talk • 04:33, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

RE: Gallery of passports

I am puzzled and perplexed by this nomination: 'Wikipedia is not a web host', like what exactly does that mean in the context of this article? There is no other article in Wikipedia which fully exhibits passports from around the world, using images from the Wikipedia articles themselves. If you cannot satisfactorily substantiate your nomination, I will remove that notice per PROD. Bosonic dressing (talk) 16:24, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

The nomination is per WP:NOTWEBHOST as it is nothing more than a gallery of images and provides no additional coverage of the subject.--RadioFan (talk) 16:28, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

And is a gallery any more or less substantive than a text-based list or article? This article doesn't fit any of the four criteria listed at that subsection, and so ... Bosonic dressing (talk) 16:36, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Cult Ritual

Just wanted to let you know that I changed the type of discussion you listed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cult Ritual (band) under from O to M. You had listed it as a business/organization, rather than media and music. -WarthogDemon 19:20, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

dePRODing of articles

Hello RadioFan, this is an automated message from SDPatrolBot to inform you the PROD templates you added to a number of articles were removed:

• PROD removed from Por Ti Baby, by User:Chelo61, with summary '(I added chart information)'
• PROD removed from Rica Y Apretadita (Kumbia All Starz song), by User:Chelo61, with summary '(I added chart information)'
• PROD removed from Speedy Gonzales (Kumbia All Starz song), by User:Chelo61, with summary '(no edit summary)'

Please consider discussing your concerns with the relevant users before pursuing deletion further. If you still think the articles should be deleted after communicating with the 'dePRODer,' you may send them to WP:AfD for community discussion. Thank you - SDPatrolBot (talk) (Learn how to opt out of these messages)

Ghana Innovation Marketplace

I don't know if you are aware, but your prod on Ghana Innovation Marketplace has been removed by an IP editor (who did add a couple of sources, so that might address your concerns). Only noticed it because they removed a template on another article started by the same editor, and figured I'd drop you a note. Syrthiss (talk) 16:54, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Proposed Deletion of John Witmer

Please give me a bit more time here. He is quite notable in Canada, in terms of the history of Canadian blues music and his well-respected vocal abilities. I will remove the date produced re the caution and repeat request for more time on the "Talk" section of the page.

Dreadarthur (talk) 16:31, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

I will try to demonstrate notability to your satisfaction over the next couple of days. From what I can see, the form of deletion notification gives me some time here, for which I thank you.

Dreadarthur (talk) 16:34, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

I am wondering if there is enough on the page now to establish notability and remove the caution tags. I should have set it up with an "under construction" notice initally; sorry.

Dreadarthur (talk) 18:08, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

I've removed the prod but the references still could be improved, allmusic.com (which I'm not wild about as a reference since the breadth of coverage there is so wide from the least notable garage bands to the most notable multi-platinum artists), the artist's record lable (a primary source in this case, thus not applicable to establshing notability) which leaves the Toronto Blues Society website which is a good one. Are there any other references available? Music reviews or an obituary in more traditional media (newspapers, magazines, etc).--RadioFan (talk) 18:17, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Camden Children's Garden

You recently nominated my article about the Camden Children's Garden for deletion. We would like to comply with the regulations for organization or place and have attempted to include facts. If there are significant portions of my article that appear as advertisements, please advise and I am happy to revise.

The Camden City Garden Club/Camden Children's Garden have been featured in numerous articles in Southern NJ's Courier Post Newspaper, Philadelphia Inquirer, 6ABC, KYW3, FOX29, NBC10, South Jersey Magazine and many other notable secondary sources. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ttomchik (talk • contribs) 20:26, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

I work as a volunteer at the Camden City Garden Club as well as a part time staff member. We dont need a big advertisement - we just want to be included on wiki. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ttomchik (talk • contribs) 20:38, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

As a person with a connection to this organization, you shouldn't be editing this article as you have a conflict of interest. I"ll leave some additional information on your talk page about this.--RadioFan (talk) 20:46, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Removal of PROD from Development of Windows 95

Hello RadioFan, this is an automated message from SDPatrolBot to inform you the PROD template you added to Development of Windows 95 has been removed. It was removed by Linuxlove8088 with the following edit summary '(see talk page)'. Please consider discussing your concerns with Linuxlove8088 before pursuing deletion further yourself. If you still think the article should be deleted after communicating with the 'dePRODer,' you may want to send the article to AfD for community discussion. Thank you, SDPatrolBot (talk) 22:56, 25 August 2009 (UTC) (Learn how to opt out of these messages)

Removal of PROD from The Lair of the Ice Worm

Hello RadioFan, this is an automated message from SDPatrolBot to inform you the PROD template you added to The Lair of the Ice Worm has been removed. It was removed by BPK2 with the following edit summary '(removed notice, as reference lack has been addressed and proposal contested on talk page)'. Please consider discussing your concerns with BPK2 before pursuing deletion further yourself. If you still think the article should be deleted after communicating with the 'dePRODer,' you may want to send the article to AfD for community discussion. Thank you, SDPatrolBot (talk) 23:00, 27 August 2009 (UTC) (Learn how to opt out of these messages)

Wikipedia radio script.

Hello, I have used the wikipedia radio script for a long while now and would like to continue using it. Thanks --milonica (talk) 03:09, 30 August 2009 (UTC)